|
|
||
Tyranny of One, Tyranny of AllLicenses, Numbers, and IdentificationWritten by Darrell Anderson. Surf the web and one will find many articles, essays, and discussions about the various efforts to establish a national ID card system. Although many people scoff at privacy and abuse concerns, many are actively seeking methods to avoid or curtail those abuses. Many people express concerns about protecting their privacy. Many fail to understand that in any human relationship all enjoined parties possess standing to know with whom they are dealing. Identity is important. Identity is a non-issue when viewed from an individualistic perspective, but the social dynamics change when people form groups. The larger the group the more important identification becomes. In past days, identity was not a critical issue because most people did business only within a confined geographical area and validating an individual’s identity was a straightforward process. As people continued to migrate, move, and mix with other people, identification became more challenging. Thus, the persistent effort to validate an individual’s identity. Therefore, people must remember that outside of local communities, there always will be efforts to authenticate an individual’s identity. There is no cure of this process as long as humans are creatures of limited knowledge. Thus, in practical application and between private parties, identity never should be an issue. What many people are concerned about, however, is that history repeatedly proves how politicians, bureaucrats, and special interests tend to abuse the privileges they receive through the illusions of a political system. Consider the most discussed issue: driver’s “licenses.” Most, if not all people who desire to travel in a “motor vehicle” are statutorily required to register that property with the bureaucrats, obtain a personal permit to “operate” that property, and must provide proof of financial indemnity, usually in the form of insurance. Consider how that process might function in a hypothetical world free of statism. Assume that in such a world human action is guided by free association, voluntary exchange, persuasion, and cooperation; not force, coercion and the threat of violence. Also assume that in such a world that property boundaries are strongly observed, protected, and enforced. In such a world, all people are free to travel as they choose. Some roads would be true public property; that is, owned and titled to nobody. Some roads would be private; that is, owned and titled to certain individuals. Travel on the private roads would require permission from the titleholder, whereas travel on the truly public roads would not. Travel on the private roads would be subject to the whims and fancies of the titleholder. There would be no such restrictions on the truly public roads. Because property boundaries are strongly enforced and observed, any individual who, while traveling in an automobile causes damage to another individual, would be held accountable for that damage. Whether the damage is intentional or unintentional is irrelevant. Trespass occurred and the damaged party will seek some form of restoration or restitution. The mechanics of that process or how restitution is enforced is unimportant to this discussion. What will most people do in such an environment? More than likely, many people will learn to travel in a safer manner than what is now observed. Because of those concerns, technological innovation will provide many tools and equipment for people to travel more safely. More than likely, many roads would be built and maintained in a manner providing better traveling conditions, especially private roads operated for profit. However, many people likely would buy insurance. Insurance is nothing more than a group of people voluntarily pooling resources to provide a commonly desired good and service in the form of restoring damaged property. In a world where property boundaries are strongly protected, restitution will be a common means to reconcile trespasses. Thus, people who provide insurance protection more than likely will require stricter scrutiny than what is provided today. The first issue that any insurance provider will face is the challenge of identity. Providers want to know with whom they are providing protection, and also will want to know to whom they are providing restitution if a client caused damage. Thus, insurance customers likely would be required to provide a means of publicly identifying property. Insurance providers also would require customers to register their automobiles with the provider. A provider possesses standing to know the condition of the property being insured. Another criterion an insurance provider would require or promote is validating skills and qualifications. Some providers likely would provide insurance to people who do not provide proof of skills, but such people would pay higher premiums. People who provide proof of skills — and of maintaining those skills through refresher training — would pay lower premiums. Thus, a training and certification process would exist within the market. Readers should notice that this environment is similar to the current process. In both the modern statist world and in the hypothetical non-statist world, people who travel in automobiles would register their property, publicly identify that property (license plates), carry proof of training and skills certification (driver’s license), and would carry insurance. There are several critical differences, however. In the non-statist world no individual is required to register property, seek or maintain certification of skills, or possess insurance. The uninsured but careful traveller might never trespass against another traveller, and each individual personally must decide and balance the amount of risk he or she desires to accept versus the perceived benefit that might received by taking other protective action. In a non-statist world where property boundaries are strictly observed, protected, and enforced, all people would find themselves accountable for any intentional or unintentional trespass. Regardless, no individual would be required to participate in any insurance process. By contract, information provided to any insurance provider would be strictly controlled. By contract such information never would be exchanged with third parties without the knowledge and consent of the customer. Likely there would be no centralized depository of such information, as is practiced in modern political climates. People would register property with private insurance providers only. Those people who buy insurance protection would continue displaying some form of public identification similar to modern license plates, although those mechanisms would be regulated by the insurance contract. Travellers would maintain certification of skills, although that certification might not necessarily be carried personally when travelling because the insurance contract would provide such proof. In such a non-statist world, various communities of people might require their own rules and guidelines. To travel within the boundaries of such communities, outside travellers might be required to publicly identify themselves even if they choose to remain uninsured. Some communities might not allow travel within their boundaries without insurance or identification. Such would be the world of true free association and voluntary exchange. Readers should realize that identity is not the issue of debate. The issue is how personal information is shared and regulated and by whom. Information should be shared and regulated by explicit contract — by free association and voluntary exchange, not the fiat statutory will of a few politicians and bureaucrats. The debate rests upon an age-old question: are humans essentially good or evil? If humans essentially are good then no centralized political process is necessary to regulate human action and no justification then exists for the philosophy of statism. If humans essentially are evil, then no human can be entrusted to provide protection and all centralized political systems are doomed to failure because of that corrupt nature. Either way the only rational route is to allow free association and voluntary exchange. Therein lies the critical issue about national ID cards. The politicians, bureaucrats, and special interests are the people pushing for such a program, instead of allowing people to develop and evolve their own means of identifying the people with whom they wish to interact. As is often the case, the true debatable issue is the philosophy of statism. Finis. Next: Sheriffs |
||